Don’t blame Zuckerberg: Why stronger tech regulation leads to more tech censorship

My 2-year-old daughter has recently been spending some of her minimal screen time watching YouTube videos of her favorite Elmo content. Digital “swiping” seems somehow second nature to kids born into the smartphone era, so she started clicking on some of the videos that were recommended to her. I looked away for a moment, and when I looked back, I saw that she had somehow come across a video titled “Watch Elmo Die.”

It was shocking and disturbing, but also a great opportunity to learn how parental controls work.

I don’t want YouTube’s algorithm to give that to my kids or other kids. But I don’t want to call a U.S. senator and get him involved in what happens between me, my kids, and the addictive social media platforms we all use so often.

Last week, the CEOs of some of the top tech companies gathered on Capitol Hill for a bipartisan public flogging in front of the Senate and a salivating press, but they all more or less united in their efforts to support TikTok and X. He despised the leader. The entire event was ostensibly about social media companies not doing enough to stop child abuse on their platforms. But like most hearings where public officials can feel the bright light of an overzealous media apparatus, it devolved into a theatrical and widespread attack.

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta and founder of Facebook, was the most targeted of the group and the poster child for the Capital P problem in social media. He was urged by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) on Facebook to turn around and apologize to the families of the children affected, and he humiliatedly complied.

There are many serious problems with social media today, and its influence on our culture and daily life is large and continues to grow, so solving the problems has become paramount. Masu. Senators and leading critics of these platforms have pointed to some legitimate concerns. But all too often these days we start to slide towards false solutions to real problems, and every time some random person goes “viral” or gains a large audience. , moving toward giving more power to those who feel solutions are disappearing.

And if there’s bipartisan agreement on anything these days, it should raise some eyebrows.

In this case, the internet boogeyman became Section 230, a part of a 1996 law that gives online service providers immunity from lawsuits over their users’ postings on these platforms. Politicians on both sides of the aisle hope to gain influence over these companies to push for further regulation. And I’m sure thousands of lawyers are salivating over what will happen if these platforms lose their immunity.

Mr. Zuckerberg and the executives at his powerful social media companies, from Facebook to Instagram to WhatsApp, are not without criticism. He himself acknowledged at the hearing for years that efforts are needed to continue to police the vast amount of content that appears on the platform.

Rather, it is clear that Zuckerberg is an altruistic, powerful billionaire, driven not purely by profit or a more sinister mission, but by his commitment to helping the world and its people connect and express themselves. We should be grateful that they appear to be motivated by the interests of

But the short-sighted approach of removing Section 230 as a remedy for daily internet outrage will backfire. Because more technology regulation and fewer protections will definitely lead to more technology censorship. We have seen the insidious ways these companies disrupt platforms and chill the speech of those deemed unacceptable. If platforms, such as Twitter files or Hunter Biden’s laptop, become as responsible as their users, Americans will lose the ability to have free conversations.

In many ways, the censorship we’ve seen so far pales in comparison to what could happen if the senators in that chamber had their way. At the moment, we are experiencing what could be described as “retroactive censorship,” where posts are flagged and removed, or published posts are banned. Imagine a world where “aggressive censorship” is the norm. There, you won’t be able to hit the publish button and share your thoughts with the world, but instead you’ll be queuing up to have your content vetted before it’s allowed on the open internet.

But at the heart of the misplaced anger at Zuckerberg is a group of voters who feel power is slipping from their hands. Senators and other elite consensus promoters fear that new tools will allow “the people” to gain prominence. The gatekeepers are alienated, which infuriates them and drives them to seek revenge.

But it’s also America’s moms and dads today. Raising children in a digital world and raising children who are far more understanding than we are can feel daunting. They understand the real challenges and risks of social media: how isolating it can be, how it can lead to loneliness, vanity, and worse. they are asking for help.

I sympathize with these parents, but there are far better ways to solve the problem than pushing for government regulations. Let’s fight the platform…on the platform. There are more avenues than ever for parents to work together to make real change.

Ultimately, it is the parents’ responsibility to monitor their children and encourage positive and safe choices. You don’t have to sue Elon Musk if your child gets drunk and gets into a Tesla and hurts himself or someone else. Just like there’s a way to use X or Facebook or any other platform responsibly, there’s a way to use Tesla responsibly.

Mark Zuckerberg is not without responsibility for the social network he has created into the world. But I trust him, more than any local politician, to solve the many problems that exist, with new ones emerging every day in our increasingly digital lives.

NewsNation contributor Steve Krakauer is the author of “Uncovered: How the Media Get Cozy with Power, Abandoned Its Principles, and Lost the People” and editor and host of the Fourth Watch newsletter and podcast.